Re: Include file questions

On 5/25/07, Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 18:20 +0200, Tijnema wrote: On 5/25/07, Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 18:04 +0200, Tijnema wrote:

On 5/25/07, Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 17:07 +0200, Tijnema wrote:

I like to keep it simple, just like this: / /data

    /http
      /project1
        /includes
          config.php << With passwords :P
        /images
      /project2
        /includes

You won't like mine then :) /wherever

       /Project
           /bin
           /build
               /source
               /static
               /templates
               patterns.txt
           /compilers
           /configs
           /cron
           /functions
           /modules
           /services
           /sql
           buildSite.php*
           config.interjinn.php@ (link to active config in /configs)

Running buildSite.php (which uses patterns.txt) generates the webtree: /wherever

       /DOC_ROOT

Cheers, Rob.

Definitely not.! also way too complicated... :P Tijnema

I think the word you're looking for is "organized" ;) Cheers, Rob. --

Do you call your code organized? Very. Each directory contains very specific types of code/content. Tracking down where any given function, class, custom tag, behaviour, etc is defined is extremely simple. Cheers, Rob.

I don't agree with you, i have includes in includes dir inside my project, images in images, etc. classes in includes dir start with class. configuration files in includes start with config. etc. But, this is all about personal preference ;) I like the way I do it, you like the way you do it... Tijnema